It might be useful to be able to predict war. But tension does not necessarily lead to war, but often to peace and to denouement.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Today continuing poverty and distress are a deeper and more important cause of international tensions, of the conditions that can produce war, than previously.
It is not scientifically possible to accurately predict the outcome of an action. To suggest otherwise runs contrary to historical experience and the nature of war.
I think that war is diplomacy by other means, for sure, and there have been wars that have been fought for righteous reasons. There are wars that have had to be fought, and there will probably continue to be.
Wars and conflicts are not inevitable. They are caused by human beings.
Helplessness induces hopelessness, and history attests that loss of hope and not loss of lives is what decides the issue of war.
I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.
My argument is that War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading.
We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.
War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.
War is a contagion.
No opposing quotes found.